CR 
167 
U6W6 


PROPOSED  TH  ON  COATS  OF 


UCSB   LIBRARY 


REASONS 


EEGULATION  OP  THE  USE  OF  COAT-ARMOR 


IN  THE  UNITED  STATES, 


A  PLAN  FOR  TAXING  THE  EMPLOYMENT  OF  SUCH 
INSIGNIA. 


BY    W.    H.    WHITMORE. 


BOSTON : 

DAVID  CLAPP  &  SON,  PRINTERS 334  WASHINGTON  STREET. 

1868. 

P   *• 


THE  PROPOSED  TAX  ON  COATS  OF  ARMS. 


THE  proposal  of  Hon.  John  W.  Chanler  in  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives, to  levy  a  tax  upon  armorial  bearings,  has  brought  the  subject  of 
their  use  to  a  practical  consideration.  If  the  United  States  can  derive 
any  considerable  revenue  from  this  source,  it  is  a  matter  worthy  the 
serious  consideration  of  the  Committee  on  Ways  and  Means,  to  which 
the  resolution  was  referred.  If  it  be  possible  at  the  same  time  to 
remove  from  the  national  character  a  reproach  to  which  it  has  been 
hitherto  liable,  the  opportunity  ought  not  to  be  neglected.  • 

It  would  seem  possible  to  accomplish  both  these  results  in  a  very 
brief  time  and  at  the  expense  of  very  little  official  machinery  ;  and 
we  will  attempt  to  point  out  one  way,  not  claiming,  of  course,  that 
it  is  the  only  mode. 

A  simple  enactment,  that  any  one  who  uses  a  coat-of-arms  shall 
pay  an  annual  tax  therefor,  if  couched  in  the  same  terms  as  that  im- 
posing the  tax  on  carriages,  yachts,  watches  and  a  few  other  specified 
luxuries,  seems  defective,  inasmuch  as  these  are  well-known  articles 
of  merchandize.  The  use  of  armorial  bearings  approaches  in  its  na- 
ture more  closely  to  the  employment  of  a  profession  or  business,  A 
man  might  obtain  a  license  empowering  him  for  one  year  to  use  such 
coat-armor  as  he  pleased,  in  the  same  way  that  he  now  receives  per- 
mission to  pursue  his  ordinary  business  as  a  merchant  or  in  any  pro- 
fession. Yet  the  law  will  not  grant  a  license  to  carry  on  any  business 
which  in  the  opinion  of  Congress  is  injurious  to  the  interests  of  the 
people.  It  may  be  added  that  such  a  license  seems  to  be  a  recogni- 
tion by  Congress  that  the  business  or  profession  is  one  worthy  of  its 
protection.  In  the  list  of  trades  or  occupations  which  now  require  a 
license  are  a  few  which  many  people  hold  to  be  morally  wrong,  yet 


it  is  not  disputed  that  the  majority  of  Congress  holds  a  different  view, 
and  the  licensees  are  protected  in  their  respective  employments. 
Some  object  to  the  manufacture  of  spirituous  liquors,  others  to  the 
managing  of  theatres,  to  vending  lottery  tickets,  or  to  dealing  in 
tobacco  ;  yet  the  fact  that  these  avocations  are  licensed  removes  them 
from  the  class  of  illegal  or  prohibited  pursuits. 

It  would  also  be  clearly  unjust  for  the  government  to  extort  a  tax 
even  from  the  vanity  of  willing  dupes,  if  it  gave  no  fair  equivalent 
therefor.  As  titles  of  nobility  are  prohibited  in  the  United  States,  no 
tax  can  be  levied  upon  the  possessors  of  them  ;  and  it  would  be  unfair 
and  absurd  to  propose  a  tax  on  these  purely  fictitious  titles  which 
various  societies  'confer  on  their  members.  Not  to  cite  titles  open  to 
verbal  criticism,  the  Free  Masons  bestow  the  title  of  Knight  upon 
certain  of  their  fraternity,  and  there  can  be  no  question  that  such  is 
the  name  of  a  recognized  order  of  nobility.  In  that  it  lacks  the  offi- 
cial recognition  of  government,  however,  this  honor  is  defective  in 
its  essential  point.  Every  man  knows  that  a  Knight  is  such  only  so 
far  and  so  long  as  his  associates  choose  to  give  him  the  name.  It 
would  be  harsh  and  unjust,  however,  for  government  to  single  out 
such  nominal  Knights,  and  make  them  pay  for  their  fictitious  titles  or 
abandon  their  social  organization. 

The  use  of  coat-armor,  however,  is  not  prohibited  by  the  Consti- 
tution, and  yet,  from  some  unwritten  prohibition,  it  has  never  been 
officially  allowed.  Why  should  a  man  be  obliged  to  pay  an  annual 
tax  for  the  use  of  a  certain  device  or  combination  of  figures  arranged 
in  a  certain  way,  rather  than  for  the  use  of  a  monogram  or  a  non- 
heraldic  device  ?  The  answer  is,  of  course,  that  in  nearly  all  the 
civilized  countries  of  Europe  these  few  marks  and  combinations  have 
a  certain  meaning  and  value,  and  that  every  government  which  recog- 
nizes their  use  is  bound  to  assent  to  the  general  agreement  as  to  their 
meaning. 

We  laugh  at  Soulouque  and  his  sable  peerage,  his  Dukes  of  Mar- 
malade and  Marquises  of  Lemonade,  because  we  acknowledge  a  stand- 
ard in  the  peerage  of  Great  Britain,  France  or  Prussia.  Is  it  not  pos- 
sible that  our  foreign  friends  will  laugh  at  a  government  which  gives 
John  Smith  a  license  to  display  the  coat-armor  of  the  Duke  of  Nor- 
folk, the  Earl  of  Derby,  of  Prince  Metternich  or  Count  Bismarck  ? 


Can  any  one  deny  that  the  government  which  collects  a  tax  from  the 
impostor  has  assumed  the  greater  portion  of  the  disgrace  ? 

At  this  point  indeed  it  might  well  be  said  that  the  wisest  course  for 
Congress  to  adopt  would  be  to  ignore  the  subject ;  and  whatever  sum 
of  money  might  be  thus  collected,  to  refuse  to  entertain  the  subject 
in  any  way.  Ifc  is  not  clear,  however,  that  there  is  no  alternative  ;  and 
if  this  use  of  coat-armor  be  a  privilege  for  which  the  public  will 
cheerfully  pay,  we  cannot  afford  to  neglect  this  source  of  revenue. 

One  thing  is  evident ;  every  where  in  our  cities  the  assumption  of 
coat-armor  is  daily  growing  more  frequent.  We  can  no  more  avoid 
the  imputation  of  being  delinquents  in  this  respect,  than  we  can  repel 
the  criticisms  formerly  justly  made  on  our  national  peculiarities.  It 
is  useless  for  our  government  to  treat  the  matter  as  beneath  its  notice, 
for  the  subject  of  the  costumes  of  its  representatives  abroad  has  been 
acted  upon  by  Congress.  It  is  certainly  the  wisest  plan  for  our 
government  to  take,  to  prohibit  the  use  or  to  insist  upon  proper 
regulations.  Either  method  is  sensible  and  easy,  though  we  confess  a 
preference  for  the  latter  course. 

There  seems  indeed  to  be  one  sensible  and  dignified  course  of 
action  which  Congress  can  adopt,  to  which  no  exception  can  be  taken 
abroad,  and  which  involves  no  additional  machinery  for  the  collection 
of  the  tax.  This  is  to  put  the  use  of  armorial  insignia  on  the  same 
basis  as  trade-marks  or  copyrights.  Let  it  be  enacted  briefly  that  as 
the  use  of  certain  devices  is  common  in  civilized  countries  to  denote 
certain  facts,  and  such  use  is  restricted  by  certain  well-known  rules, 
this  government  prohibits  the  use  of  armorial  devices  except  on  the 
following  conditions.  First,  that  by  the  payment  of  an  annual  license 
fee  of  ten  dollars,  any  one  may  be  entitled  to  use  such  armorial  bear- 
ings as  he  may  have  registered  at  the  United  States  District  Court 
in  the  district  in  which  he  is  taxed  ;  and  that  any  one  making  use  of 
any  such  insignia  on  any  article  without  license,  shall  pay  a  fine  of 
five  hundred  dollars,  except  where  such  insignia  had  been  engraved  or 
painted  on  some  article  of  the  nature  of  a  monument  or  heirloom  and 
no  personal  use  was  made  of  the  same. 

Secondly,  that  every  one  intending  to  obtain  such  a  license  should 
file  in  the  District  Court  a  statement  of  the  armorial  insignia  he  wishes 
to  adopt,  and  should  pay  therefor  the  sum  of  Fifty  dollars.  In  case  he 


6 

wished  to  show  that  such  armorial  arms  were  his  by  inheritance,  the 
proofs  should  be  cited  in  his  statement,  and  verified  by  the  oath  of  the 
applicant,  and  such  statements  should  always  be  accessible  to  the 
public  for  inspection  and  publication. 

Thirdly,  that  every  coat-of-arms  thus  licensed  should  be  the  exclu- 
sive property  of  the  applicant  and  his  descendants,  according  to  the 
rules  of  English  heraldry,  and  any  infringment  on  his  exclusive  right 
should  be  properly  punished. 

Fourthly,  that  every  such  coat-of-arms  used  under  the  license  should 
have  an  indispensable  portion  of  it,  the  date  of  the  year  in  which  the 
application  was  filed,  or  the  date  at  which,  as  the  applicant  claimed, 
it  was  used  by  some  paternal  ancestor.  The  use  of  a  false  date  in  the 
claim  should  be  punished  by  a  heavy  fine. 

In  this  way  the  government  would  simply  take  the  position,  that 
admitting  the  feeling  which  would  prompt  a  family  to  possess  some 
peculiar  insignia  for  its  exclusive  use,  it  would  agree  to  defend  the 
owner  in  his  property,  only  insisting  that  the  truth  was  told  as  to  the 
mode  of  acquiring  it. 

Every  one  who  has  studied  the  science  of  heraldry  will  agree  that 
this  proviso  of  the  date  is  perfectly  in  accordance  with  the  rules,  and 
entirely  feasible.  The  figures  may  be  placed  on  a  scroll  beneath  or 
beside  the  shield,  or  on  any  suitable  portion  of  the  field  ;  the  only 
indispensable  requisite  should  be  that  they  were  plainly  set  forth. 

In  fact  this  system  would  be  entirely  in  accordance  with  our  politi- 
cal institutions.  Certainly  \ve  do  not  desire  to  prevent  any  man  from 
distinguishing  himself,  nor  his  children  from  cherishing  a  proper  pride 
in  his  acts.  Moreover  any  system  which  will  tend  to  strengthen  the 
family  tie  among  kindred,  widely  scattered  as  families  will  become 
throughout  this  immense  country,  must  be  a  bond  of  union  and  an  aid 
in  preserving  an  identity  of  interest. 

To  induce  persons  to  adopt  this  system  and  thus  to  make  it  a  source 
of  revenue,  we  have  provided  that  any  man  may  take  his  earliest  date 
at  which  it  can  be  proved  any  of  his  paternal  ancestors  used  coat-of- 
armor.  The  fact  of  the  use  will  remain  any  way,  and  by  registering 
it  and  recognizing  it,  we  offer  a  sufficient  inducement  perhaps  to  have 
the  fashion  established. 

At  all  events  the  point  will  be  simple.     If  any  man  has  a  coat-of- 


arms  painted  on  the  panels  of  his  coach,  let  him  be  told  at  once  that 
he  may  continue  to  use  it,  but  the  government  insists  that  he  shall 
also  add  the  date  of  the  acquisition  of  the  property.  If  he  be  honest 
in  his  assertion  that  he  values  it  only  as  an  ornament  or  as  a  personal 
device,  he  will  agree  to  let  the  date  of  1868  stand  as  a  part  of  it.  If 
it  be  an  heirloom.,  he  will  be  glad  to  put  the  earlier  date  which  will 
show  the  fact,  and  it  can  injure  no  one  to  have  it  known.  The  only 
malcontent  will  be  the  man  who  has  hoped  that  in  the  lack  of  all 
rules  and  authority,  his  assumed  coat  has  been  believed  to  be  an 
inheritance. 

Lastly,  we  would  propose  that  any  officer  of  the  army  or  navy  who 
has  been  promoted  for  special  gallantry  in  the  field  or  for  great  ability 
in  the  discharge  of  his  duties,  shall  have  the  right  to  substitute  for  the 
date,  the  name  of  the  battle  in  which  he  won  his  promotion,  and  shall 
not  be  obliged  to  pay  the  registration  fee.  We  should  doubtless  in 
this  way  meet  the  want  which  has  been  so  strongly  felt,  of  some 
mode  by  which  a  meritorious  officer  could  be  rewarded.  Crosses, 
ribands,  medals  and  other  decorations  have  been  but  seldom  employed 
by  our  government,  but  here  the  use  of  such  a  reward  may  be  easily 
made  a  part  of  an  important  system. 

The  whole  plan,  in  fact,  would  allow  of  those  gradations  which 
would  meet  the  requirements  of  every  class.  Government  would 
have  the  merit  on  the  one  hand  of  suppressing  that  ridiculous  aping  of 
foreign  heraldry  now  prevalent,  and  would  substitute  a  mode  simple 
and  republican.  To  the  man  of  wealth  it  would  offer  an  inheritance 
for  his  children,  founded  on  a  truth  ;  to  the  man  conscious  of  a  dis- 
tinguished ancestry,  a  recognition  of  the  fact ;  and  to  the  man  who 
had  risked  his  life  for  his  country,  an  acknowledgment  of  his  ser- 
vices, the  more  to  be  prized  since  it  could  always  be  borne  without 
ostentation. 

If  all  these  inducements  should  fail  to  render  the  use  of  coat-armor 
popular,  then  surely  it  is  time  to  prohibit  it  entirely.  As  it  stands  it 
is  but  a  mockery,  and  nothing  but  the  breath  of  authority  can  give  it 
life.  If  it  be  declined  after  being  profiered  on  such  honest  and  intel- 
ligible grounds  as  those  we  have  named,  let  us  have  no  more  of  it, 
and  let  the  law  destroy  it. 

We  incline,  however,  to  the  belief  that  it  would  prove  a  financial 


8 

success,  since  it  is  well  known  that  these  insignia  are  of  prime  im- 
portance in  many  forms  of  decoration.  Let  us  have  an  honest  and 
manly  system  of  American  heraldry,  and  we  do  not  fear  that  the  num- 
ber of  applicants  will  be  too  insignificant. 


NOTE. — Memorandum  of  the  plan  herein  proposed  : 

1. — The  use  of  coat-armor  shall  be  prohibited  to  all  but  those  who 
pay  an  annual  tax. 

2. — The  description  of  the  arms  shall  be  filed  in  the  District  Court, 
and  a  fee  of  at  least  fifty  dollars  paid  therefor ;  the  record  being 
always  open  for  inspection.  Officers  now  or  formerly  in  the  military 
or  naval  service  of  the  United  States  to  be  allowed  to  record  their  arms 
without  paying  such  fee ;  and  in  the  case  of  an  officer  deceased,  his 
children  should  be  allowed  the  privilege  of 'entering  arms  in  their 
father's  name. 

3. — The  date  of  entry  at  the  Court  is  in  all  cases  to  decide  the  own- 
ership, if  two  persons  have  entered  the  same  arms,  unless  one  party 
prove  inheritance,  in  which  case  he  shall  have  the  exclusive  right. 
In  all  cases  the  person  dispossessed  may  amend  his  first  description, 
and  thus  obtain  a  new  coat-of-arms  without  further  charge. 

4. — The  date  of  the  year  when  the  arms  were  assumed,  to  be  a 
necessary  part  of  them,  except  that  the  date  of  an  inherited  shield 
may  be  used  instead ;  or  by  an  officer  of  the  United  States,  the  name 
of  any  battle,  &c. 

5. — These  provisions  to  apply  only  to  personal  use,  and  not  to  refer 
to  existing  monuments  or  records. 

6. — After  the  record  at  the  Court,  the  right  shall  remain  although 
no  use  is  made.  The  tax  is  to  be  only  for  such  years  as  personal  use 
is  intended. 

7. — In  all  cases  where  persons  have  paintings  of  arms,  or  engraved 
plate  or  seals,  they  must  take  out  a  license  annually,  though  they 
need  not  file  a  description  nor  alter  the  existing  shields  by  adding  the 
date. 


o? 

lfo-7 


THE  LIBRARY 
UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA 

Santa  Barbara 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW. 


Series  9482 


NEWARK,  NJ.  •  WIlllAMSC  ORT,  PA. 
LOS  ANOatS,  CALIF. 
UULHTFORO,  OHT. 


- 


•    • 


